Related papers: Reply to the comment to Phy. Rev. Lett. 86, 3392 (…

We reply to the comment by Ying Zhang and S. Das Sarma on our PRL 94, 226405 (2005).

Reply to the recent comment by I.Ispolatov and M.Karttunen, cond-mat/0303564

Reply to the Comment by F. Corberi, E. Lipiello and M. Zannetti (cond-mat/0211609).

Reply to the Comment physics/0307134 by A. Helmstetter and D. Sornette

We respond to the criticisms of a recent paper of Buchert et al. [arXiv:1505.07800]

A short Reply to the Comment of Prokof'ev and Svistunov, cond-mat/0504008, is given.

We reply to the Comment by Hartmann (cond-mat/9908132) on our paper Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 (2000) 2026 (also cond-mat/9907125).

After the rejection of their comment [arXiv:cond-mat/0609399v1] to our Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 97}, 100601 (2006), the Authors informed us that an extended version of their comment is going to be published in a different journal under the…

We reply to a recent comment by Bhattacharya et. al. (cond-mat/9812290) on our previous Letter (PRL 81, 5640 (1998)).

We respond to invalid criticism in the recent Comment by Schneider et al. [arXiv:1407.4127v1]

Reply to Bernevig, Giuliano, and Laughlin: cond-mat/0410147

Response to Comment by A. Bussmann-Holder (arXiv:0909.3603)

We remark on the validity of the concerns raised in the comment(cond-mat/0304626) by Fal'ko, Lerner, Tsyplyatyev, and Aleiner..

Here we reply to the comment by A. F. Volkov, F. S. Bergeret, and K. B. Efetov.

Gates et al (astro-ph/9606132) have raised several issues in their Comment on our Letter (Phys. Rev. Lett. Vol. 76, p.3886 (1996); astro-ph/9605001). We clarify these issues and show that our results are robust, and there is no…

This is a Comment to the recent review by L. Glozman, hep-ph/0701081

Reply to the preceding comment by Rolf Schilling and Bernhard Schmid [arXiv:1101.5577, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 049601 (2011)].

Statements included in the comment published by Schumann et al. (arXiv:1904.03023v1) are contradicted by documents that were communicated to one of the co-authors of the comment (Dr. Koester). These documents are reviewed but cannot be…

This combines a reply to the Comment [hep-th/0203067 v1] by A. N. Vaidya and R. de L. Rodrigues with an erratum to our Letter [Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 210405 (2001)]

In this communication we refute a criticism concerning results of our work [3] that was presented in references [1] and [2].